Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: Krakatoa

Here you go.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Supply and demand remember? Minimum wage jobs are easier to find than high paying ones. There are only so many high paying jobs to hire people but there is an abundance of minimum wage jobs out there. High paying jobs run out of openings whereas minimum wage jobs can't seem to run out of openings.

You have 1,000 people applying for 10 openings compared to the same amount applying for 500 openings. Do the math. Minimum wage jobs have flooded the market whereas high paying ones have left it. That can only get people so far you know.

It's not an issue with the work force, it's an issue with the employers.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

I'm going just a bit OT in this post, but I essentially agree with you.

Capitalism is like an Irish tater. Cook it up and it's dull, bland, and boring. Socialism is like salt. Try to eat a big spoonful of salt and you'll gag and choke. But put a little salt on that tater and you've got French Fries! Glorious, tasty, exciting French Fries!

We need both, capitalism and socialism, in the right amount. Right now we have a massive imbalance... part of that tater is buried in salt, while the other end has never seen a single crystal. But we can't change that overnight. The only thing we can do NOW, right this minute, to help ourselves is to start looking ahead toward a better path through life. And in order to do that, we need to learn from each other and think outside the box.

You know, the box with the word "can't" written on it...

Living on the edge only works so long as nothing else goes wrong.

My wife had heart surgery (atrial septic deviation (sp?), corrected by an implant) to the tune of $140,000 during my school career. I paid off what little I could, and managed to get a lot more of it written off as charitable. What little is left I will soon be able to pay. I hope someday to be able to make a charitable contribution to those facilities which helped me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: seasonal

I honestly think there's something that goes wrong with the brain after so many hours of math....

Yes, I do tend to have a very dry sense of humor, and I do tend to do things that are sorta off the wall. I typically walk around with my shoes untied, because I forget to tie them (or just don't care). Most of the engineers I work with also have a wry sense of humor. There is now a running joke between myself and my sponsor. I walk in, say "what's changed?", and he says "everything's changed." It's a reference to a recent project which was redesigned from the ground up three times while I was designing the final circuit board.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't know how old you are; you may not remember what I am about to say.

There was a time when those minimum-wage jobs were all entry-level, intended for kids to work after school, maybe for college students, or for retired folk who just wanted to keep doing something. Almost no one except a very few who were too lazy to try to do better, stayed in a minimum-wage job for very long after school. You got a position with a better company and moved up the ladder, or went straight out of college or vocational school into a better job. You worked until retirement age, saved your money, got your gold watch, and went home.

That doesn't work today.

Today you have to be more aggressive, more capable, more valuable to break out of that minimum-wage rut. As you say, there's maybe 1000 applications for a single job opening. But in the more professional careers, there's more like 20 applications for that job. Your odds are much better. The benefits are much better. The job security is much better.

You are crying the song that follows the job market from yesteryear, expecting it to be applicable to today's market. It isn't. Today takes a new strategy. No more will you be able to retire from a job you have worked at for 30 years, comfortable and with a gold watch. Today you have to plan your own retirement strategy, advertise, promote, network, and compete vigorously to get ahead. If you don't, you will be living on minimum wage until social security sets in and pays for a tank of gas a month.

I don't like it either, but it is what it is. I found out the hard way how to get out of that rut; you decide whether you want to get out of it or not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

In the end, the employers and corporations have made it harder for us and easier for themselves. They are making record profits and paying themselves outrageous salaries while the ones they make their money off of are getting the crumbs they decide to throw their way.

The economy has become less forgiving yes, but more importantly it has become less fair. It has become unbalanced in favor of the super rich and I see your reasoning as a way to ignore the unfairness they have created to tip the scale in their favor, you are saying "deal with it" when what you should be saying is "change it to where it is more fair on the worker again". If they are doing better than ever before then why are we doing worse? Because they are greedy and want all the money for themselves and have decided to screw us over for their own gain. That much should be obvious and you yourself alluded to it in this post.

I have a right to "cry" about corporations throwing me and my generation under the bus all so they can make a little extra profit, more profit than they could ever spend in a lifetime.

According to Google, the CEO of Starbucks made a total of $9,740,471 in 2008. If he makes an average of $9,637 per hour then that equals out to about 1,010 hours worked per year. The average American with a full time job works over twice the amount of hours he does at 2,087 hours per year.

These CEO's have it SOOOO hard. They make 1000x the money we do yet only put in half the amount of hours. Sounds fair doesn't it?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Or, he earns $3200 and hour and works 3000 hours a year, meaning he works 1.5 times what the average person works.
No wait maybe he earns $2400 and hour and works 4000 hours.

Or maybe I'm just proving that the way you decided to calculate his hourly wage and hours worked is entirely made up and completely worthless garbage.

a reply to: stolencar18

He is a thief all the same.

a reply to: stolencar18

Where are you getting your numbers from?

McDonald's and Starbucks CEO's make more than $9,200 an hour

On January 8, 2008 Schultz returned as CEO of Starbucks after an eight-year hiatus. At this time, Schultz was earning a total compensation of $9,740,471, which included a base salary of $1,190,000, and options granted of $7,786,105.

Source

My numbers are based on the ones Starbucks themselves have released.

Where did you get that Schultz worked 3,000 or 4,000 hours from? Your ass?

According to the first article, the average worker has to work over 2 1/2 months to equal their CEO's pay in one hour. Does a CEO do nearly 3 months of work in one hour? I doubt it.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

In the end, the employers and corporations have made it harder for us and easier for themselves.

Of course they have! Here's a hint: EVERYONE tries to make things easier for themselves at the expense of others.

The economy has become less forgiving yes, but more importantly it has become less fair.

Yes it has. Why? Because today businesses have to deal with so much in the form of regulations and restrictions, the cost of operating a business and employing someone has gone up. There's more risk; businesses are closing every day. Obamacare has raised the cost of full-time employees tremendously to reward insurance companies... with a captive market, required by law to obtain health insurance, they can charge pretty much whatever they want. OSHA, while a good idea in general, has been abused to punish businesses. Civil rights, again, a good thing in theory, has been used to successfully bilk businesses out of billions of dollars. Now add in the taxes, environmental regulations, legal restrictions to keep from getting sued over silly stuff, high-priced accountants to try and understand the tax laws, etc., etc., etc. and you have a very tedious business environment.

It's driven entire industries overseas. The companies that are still here are having a harder time attracting investors, and have to make their bottom line even better than before. And I'm sure it has a lot of people refusing to open new companies (I know it has done that to me).

Oh, and another hint: life's not fair.

I have a right to "cry"

Yes, you do. Go right ahead.

I never said once you didn't have the right to cry. I just said it wouldn't do any good for you or anyone else.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, the restrictions these corporations have to deal with are SO bad that they are making more money than they have ever made before. They sure have tightened those reigns haven't they? We all know these corporations don't pay politicians and lawmakers to make ANY laws that benefit their bottom line above the livelihoods of their employees.

Poor corporations, them and their multi-billion dollar and record breaking profits. I don't know how they can stand making such a small amount of money.

It seems like you're making excuses for their greed. I'm not buying it. If they have it so hard they wouldn't be making the record amounts of money they are making as we speak.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

*sigh*

You haven't read a word I have posted, have you?

Corporations are not making money hand over fist.... INVESTORS in successful corporations are! They have to expect more because the chance that a business will fail has increased.

I don't know if it's just a refusal to accept reality or if you're serious about not understanding simple human nature. Everyone is trying to make money, not just Starbucks baristas, not just convenience store clerks, not just construction workers, everyone! That includes investors, managers, entrepreneurs, and bankers too. I would hazard to guess you yourself have never turned down a paycheck you worked for, nor have you ever refused a raise. That means you yourself are just as greedy, just as self-centered, just as money-grubbing as the people you are railing against. The difference between you and them is not privilege, not status, not income, not even talent.... it's willingness to do what has to be done to be successful.

I intend to be successful again some day. I will not be a hypocrite and rail against those who have achieved what I desire. I will instead learn from them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I've read every word you've written, I just don't feel the need to go point by point especially since I'm on my phone at the moment.

I don't desire million dollar homes or expensive sports cars, I desire to live a comfortable life without having to worry about whether I can afford food or other essentials especially since I am working for those things. Should my work go unrewarded? Because that's the case for millions of Americans right now, their hard work isn't rewarded like it should be.

I have never turned down a paycheck, but I sure as hell haven't increased my own by taking it from someone else either. I'm not greedy, I'm just not someone who decides to bend over and "deal with it" like you have suggested.

Apparently you're ok with these multi-billion dollar businesses making life harder for people while making theirs increasingly easier. That's called selfishness and greed, taking from others to give to yourself. I don't find that to be a good quality and is exactly what is wrong with America today.

Why do you think these politicians lie to us? So they can get that paycheck from their donors only to fulfill what THEY want done, not what they said they would do. Do you excuse that as well? They take those checks to make their lives easier and in the process they make ours harder by going back on their word.

Do you make excuses for those politicians? Then why are you doing it for the ones cutting the checks?

CEO Pay Has Grown 90 Times Faster than Typical Worker Pay Since 1978

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that picture at all. Greed is good! It seems as though those supposed "restrictions and regulations" you mentioned earlier have done jack squat to these people, if anything they've had the opposite effect than what was intended. I wouldn't be surprised if those things were made just to give these people an excuse to screw us over, a scapegoat if you will.

originally posted by: onequestion
It give wealthy people a serious advantage of the average man weather you like it or not

That's only because the average man who plays with wall street thinks they're a competent investor. The best investors in the world are extremely lucky to beat the market average even 1 in 10 years.

If you're worse than that, it's literally just a high priced casino.

a reply to: Aazadan

The marke is far less conplicated than a casino but you need time energy and financial resources in order to be able to become even moderately adequate in order to invest in it

You need to be able to fail which average people cannot do

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: seasonal

The headline read

"Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages: Over 9000 Signatures"

Please tell me, if it were your hard-earned money we were talking about as an investment, would you feel the same way? Would you shrug and say, "Never mind paying me this year; just give it as a Christmas bonus to the employees"?

When was the last time you handed your employer your paycheck back because you didn't want to be 'greedy'?

Yes, the investors want their money! Of course they do! What in the wide world of sports is wrong with that?

TheRedneck

What's wrong with the employee's wanting paid too? If you pay more per hour, but then cut hours they're in the exact same place (with a bit more free time).

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: RomeByFire

And profit is bad? A business that makes a profit, stays in business (DUH). When a business does not make a profit, it closes and ALL the employees lose their jobs (DUH).

It is, because economics is a zero sum game. Excessive profit to one business, means excessive losses to another and takes away jobs.

The theory of a free market even revolves around this idea, profit happens when market inefficiencies are found. Eventually everything is supposed to balance out in a state of perfect competition at which point everyone covers their expenses and there is no profit for anyone.

a reply to: Aazadan

It is, because economics is a zero sum game.

False. The idea that someone has to lose something is not inherent in economics.

Excessive profit to one business, means excessive losses to another and takes away jobs.

False. While "excessive profit" may reduce the profit of a company which purchases from that company, it does not mean that company is taking a loss.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well, at least we have narrowed the problem down to comprehension and not lack of reading.

I care nothing for multi-million dollar homes either. My goals are quite different. I also make no excuses for politicians; they do nothing to help the economy. They don't create jobs (well, a few bureaucratic positions maybe), and they don't produce a product or service (unless you count harassment). That CEO that you despise and denigrate so much is at least responsible for making coffee (or whatever it is they make) for customers, and employing people. He is not responsible for the economic downturn; that's the politicians' fault. He isn't responsible for the number of unemployed people who will gladly work at Starbucks for minimum wage. He didn't make full-time employment so expensive he can't afford it any more. All he does is run the company as best he can.

Without him, Starbucks would likely not even exist. Without Starbucks, there would be no one here screaming bloody murder at him for something the politicians forced him into. Instead, we would be crying about the fact there are so few jobs, even less than there are now.

Every single employee took that job at a specified wage. They agreed to do the work; they agreed how much they would be paid. Not one was forced to come to work at Starbucks. Yet you and so many others apparently hate the guy who pays them.

I wish they could make more; I really do. I wish the economy were better and that businesses had to compete for good workers. I wish CEOs didn't demand such high wages while the average unskilled worker demands so little. But I don't blame the guy who at least gave them a job. I blame the people who made the policies that have given us such a terrible economy: the politicians.

But, it'll all work out in the end. As a poster previously said, soon automation will replace workers. Robots are efficient, don't complain, don't file lawsuits, don't take sick days off to go fishing, don't purposely slow down work because they're mad at their employer, and don't need health insurance. I will probably be one of those making the robots. I'm sure as I watch the last vestiges of a once-vibrant working force disappear into oblivion and see the third-world conditions here in the USA, I'll feel a lot of sympathy for the poor people who are suffering so badly. But I'm also sure I'll remember this discussion and a thousand more just like it where those same people told me how much they hated the people who gave them jobs.

You see, you're far from unique. Your attitude is actually quite common. Because of it, minimum wage will soon increase, probably to $15 per hour. When that happens, companies will lay off workers they can no longer afford, and some will go out of business. The few jobs that are left will not be enough to support even the fragile economy we have now, and that will mean more layoffs. Eventually we'll all be indigent, begging for anything on street corners until the laws are passed to make begging illegal. Then we'll all be in jail.

Well, not me if I can help it. Like I said, I'll probably be designing the robots. It's more productive than crying. If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, well... I can't change that. I'm going to protect me and mine first.

TheRedneck